Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoP...1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Stavros, read: Merchants of Doubt.
I repeat: The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation.
So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom.
Here ol' Chomsky explains neoliberalism.
Encirclement - Neo-Liberalism Ensnares Democracy (5/5) - YouTube
And, well, if Maggie wasn't a neoliberal, well, what was she? She certainly believed in privatization, the free movement of capital or so-called free markets. She firmly believed in property rights. I mean, she had a heavy faith in the market.
And now a little economics lesson -- :)
And, too, in order for markets to function, well, three things have to happen. (Markets are horrid in that they need to keep growing and growing. Ya know, more stuff. That's the reason we're in this ecological crisis.)
One: the sellers must bear the full cost of what they produce. Of course, car companies always bear the full cost of what they produce. As do oil companies... ha ha ha!
Pollution is a market inefficiency.
Two: investment income needs to stay in the country of origin. How often does this happen?
Three: Savings must be spent on real wealth and not phantom wealth.
And companies, again, work to undermine markets. As in order for markets to work, well, you need PERFECT information. For starters.
You also need informed consumers making rational choices.
Does this happen? I mean, corporations want UNINFORMED consumers making completely irrational choices.
So, therefore markets are inefficient.
But, again, the endless growth of markets are going to finish off the species.

BEN
It doesn't matter how many links to David Harvey's interesting book you provide, it doesn't obscure the fact that he admits in Chapter 3 (The Neoliberal State) that the actual practice of both the Reagan and Thatcher governments does not 'fit' exactly with his -or anyone else's- definition of Neoliberalism, so there were times when their policy decisions were anything but Neoliberal, but apparently this doesn't matter! Facts like this which suggest the theory is wrong are of little or no importance to Harvey who, against his own evidence, soldiers on with his distorted interpetation of history, errors of fact (p60-no, David half of Liverpool City Concil -45 out of 90- were not gaoled, ut some of them were surcharged), in order to prove that we are living through a new phase of capitalism that began in the 1970s. In spite of his alleged fidelity to Marx, Harvey has never been able to produce an analysis of the means of production or the social relations of production that is remotely as pungent as anything Uncle Charlie managed.

But what is Neoliberalism? It is Liberalism, defined intellectually in the European sense in which it is a philosophy of Free Enterprise contasted with Conservatism and Socialism. I once had to explain to a foreign student I was helping on a course in the theory of international relations, that Neoliberalism was a bogus concept dreamed up by some academics to merit the publication of a book here, a lot of articles there. It suited many people in the 1980s to latch on to it as if they needed a revived concept of an old doctrine to explain something as simple as Thatcherism -look closely and you can't see the difference. As if that wasn't bad enough, someone decided to re-package realism as, wait for it, Neo-Realism. Is it any wonder that so many students find political theory an arid field in which to plough?

Thatcher was indeed a Liberal on many issues, but she was also a Conservative, and she cannot be fit neatly into a pigeon-hole with the word 'Neo-Liberal' attached, the same is even true of Ronald Reagan -in fact, the need for all elected politicians to make pragmatic decisions when they get into office, regardless of what their 'ideology' says they should do, is what makes politics interesting and challenging.

So, sorry Ben, your need to fold people up and place them neatly into pigeon-holes is a waste of time and has nothing to do with the history of politics or the current situation in which we are in.

Just to reiterate as your other posts intervened: Margaret Thatcher was first and foremost a Conservative politician; that some of her policies were liberal was part of the trend in politics that moved away from the Keynesian consensus that had developed after 1945; but a lot of her policies and practices were not so you cannot blanket her entire political record with a slogan.

Just because some people think environmental activists are left-wing, communists or whatever, doesn't mean that they are. My point -which I don't seem to have made very well- was that if you engage with them, you find a wide range of political affiliations among people concerned about the environment, although I think the most militant direct action activists are difficult to deal with and intolerant of debate.

I notice, again, that like a lot of people, the concept of resource management doesn't excite you. And yet it is at the crux of the argument about the environment.

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

---

Sorry, unashamed been riding this marble to long to live with that. And hun, you can only baptize the dead. The living are already saved... :)

I see you chose to respond to nothing in my post but the closing simile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

...you can only baptize the dead. The living are already saved... :)

---

Interesting. Life begins at baptism, rather than conception. That should make for an equally interesting stance on abortion. You can't kill a baby that hasn't been baptized, it's already dead.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8U_JveHS8E&feature=youtu.be

Warren Buffett Exposed: The Oracle of Omaha and the Tar Sands:

http://www.desmogblog.com/warren-buf...-and-tar-sands

Without a doubt the tar sands will be sucked of their crude and transported one way or the other. If the route isn't all downhill, all modes of transportation will consume energy and most likely put more hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. What strikes me as particularly pernicious about the XL pipeline is the endangerment of the Ogallala aquifer. Most people (at least those that don't live on the desert) don't think much about water, but it is our very most valuable resource. Fracking is already contaminating scores of local underground freshwater sources. The Ogallala aquifer is a giant underground reservoir that serves millions of people. IMO it's best to take another route or another mode of transport entirely.

I know there's a movement among the Greens to abandon the sands entirely. It's not going to happen. The sands are just too alluring. The oil corporations are too greedy and their lobby too powerful. The carbon in those sands is coming out. One way or another that crude will find its way to the gulf, it'll be refined and sold on the global market.

I also know the administration is being accused of standing in the way of the jobs the XL would create. But those jobs are not in the immediate future. Whatever the procedure we finally agree upon to mine, move and refine that crude, there will be jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoP...1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

---

these people are ice age deniers lol.besides they think a little bit of ice wont hurt, any way it's more ice to drop into their cocktails :party:

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the Greenhouse Effect - YouTube

Frank Luntz in the Denial Machine (CBC - Fifth Estate) - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

these people are ice age deniers lol.besides they think a little bit of ice wont hurt, any way it's more ice to drop into their cocktails :party:

---

Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

---

you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoP...1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

---

Tit for tat -- :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

---

russtafa, what if you're wrong? Anyway, truth is: we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. That's a fact.
But the endless debate/discussion (on this site) about anthropogenic global warming will persist. I just think there are benefits to reducing pollution. Air. Water. And soil. There are benefits without even acknowledging global warming.
I don't think you should worry about a so-called carbon tax. Governments will tax you to death anyway -- :)
With respect to taxation, well, people have no power.
But, again, on the slim chance you're wrong?
OK, say it's 50 50. You know, there's a 50 percent chance it's a complete and utter hoax? Do we really want to take that risk?
I don't see the harm in switching to alternative energy? I don't think it's the solution. But what's wrong with having a bunch of wind farms? Or solar panels? Or electric cars?
Anyway, the so-called green movement or environmentalists are seen as the new communists. Ya know, a threat to freedom and so-called free market capitalism. So, it's understandable why people rail against the science of global warming.

First Environmentalism – Then Socialism!:

http://www.care2.com/causes/first-en...socialism.html

John McCain on Global Warming - YouTube

Mitt Romney Believes Global Warming Is Man-Made - YouTube

I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes?

---

go and buy some magic beans mate but i aint buying it.but
the problem is you want to force your beliefs on the rest of us, and these fucking politicians then get on to it and we end up paying for it losing jobs and higher taxes, so fuck the global warming scam and their suckers

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.

---

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

same you see truth where i see scam but you people are dangerous with your screaming at these gutless politicians who will fold to any bull shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

---

No chance in hell.

i don't see China shutting down coal generators in fact they are building more

Faldur - there is also a tiny body of scientists who also deny that HIV causes AIDS. They and the climate change deniers are recognised as, at best naive, but more probably craven idiots by the vast majority of serious scientists. You know perfectly well that the bulk of science now supports the idea of climate change - but for I assume are politically generated reasons deny this.

:bangheadbut the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down

watermelon green on the outside red on the inside=greens

Quote:

---

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution.

---

It has (peruse any reputable refereed journal on climatology) and you won't (witness the current state of denial). Why isn't the world coming together? Two factors.

1) Denial. Look at the position to which russtafa persistently returns:

Quote:

---

the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down

---

He, like many others, fears that solutions will stress the world economy in ways that will negatively impact his life and the welfare of his countrymen. When you don't understand science and you have to take your "truth" on the word of authority, that economic burden weighs heavily against accepting the authority of climate science. That's psychologically understandable, but it's also poor epistemology.

Once swayed by ignorance and the threat of economic burden, or by ignorance and ideology (or all three) a different psychology sets in: the need to defend one's position at all cost; even if that cost is your own intellectual integrity. Look for example at Faldur's claim above that there is no consensus among climate scientists. Even if you're ignorant of science, you shouldn't be ignorant of the easily checked fact that consensus exists. Faldur even knows, on a certain level, that is does when he sarcastically attacks climatologists generally in post #441. Why attack all climatologists when you claim (albeit falsely) that 50% of them support you? Or look at Faldur's post #333 where grasping for any straw to stay afloat he links to an article which he thinks attributes general long term ocean rise to the effects of El Nino and El Nina whereas the article makes no such claim, but even shows the El Nino and El Nina oscillations superposed upon the general rise due to global warming (see my post #334). These sorts of attempts to misrepresent and distort (whether they be due to inexcusable ignorance or deliberate) are examples of what the denier is led to in order to remain a denier. They are also examples of denier propaganda.

2. There is no obvious solution. It is unfeasible to simply stop burning fossil fuels. China is building coal burning plants hand over fist. Its the cheapest way for them to produce energy. It is estimated that there are enough coal deposits left on Earth to last a millennium (perhaps we should conserve them for the next ice age...but we won't). I don't see any way short of a miracle that we won't burn through them. For one thing, our first world lifestyles are at stake. Anyone here want to give up their computer, connectivity, winter heat, summer air-conditioning, car etc. etc. to save our great grandchildren that grief? For another thing, there's too much money to be made providing that energy. The coal is just laying there. All you gotta do is dig it up, sell it and ship it. One might try to slow down consumption by various sorts of regulations or incentives. Originally Democrats pushed for regulations. Republicans insisted on cap and trade. Now Democrats are pushing cap and trade, and Republicans say the free market will handle it. But to be effective, any regulation or incentive has to be international, and I'm pessimistic that we'll ever have effective national or international control of our energy consumption. The deniers (who, generally, deep down know they're wrong) are all waiting on the next scientific miracle that will produce safe energy for free while at the same time they want to reduce the funding of scientific institutions and take anti-science potshots at biologists, paleontologists, geologists and climatologists.

Disclaimer: Nowhere in this post (or prior posts in this thread) do I support any political position. I merely present the hard science and speculate on what might be going on in the heads of deniers.

Trish,

FYI - It's El Nino & La Nina. The male & female child (nino & nina) use the corresponding male or female article. (el & la both = the)

As for the rest: It reminds me of a farside cartoon that I can't seem to find. It shows a bunch of dogs in a lifeboat & they all have one front paw raised. One dog is saying: "All in favor of eating ALL the food right now, raise your paw.". The caption says: "why dogs rarely survive shipwrecks".

niño and niña
if youre gonna correct somebody at least type the words correctly

I didn't feel like digging through the character map for the enye. This is America, & it ain't on the keyboard.

Thank you hippiefried and muh_muh. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

It has (peruse any reputable refereed journal on climatology) and you won't (witness the current state of denial). Why isn't the world coming together? Two factors.

1) Denial. Look at the position to which russtafa persistently returns: He, like many others, fears that solutions will stress the world economy in ways that will negatively impact his life and the welfare of his countrymen. When you don't understand science and you have to take your "truth" on the word of authority, that economic burden weighs heavily against accepting the authority of climate science. That's psychologically understandable, but it's also poor epistemology.

Once swayed by ignorance and the threat of economic burden, or by ignorance and ideology (or all three) a different psychology sets in: the need to defend one's position at all cost; even if that cost is your own intellectual integrity. Look for example at Faldur's claim above that there is no consensus among climate scientists. Even if you're ignorant of science, you shouldn't be ignorant of the easily checked fact that consensus exists. Faldur even knows, on a certain level, that is does when he sarcastically attacks climatologists generally in post #441. Why attack all climatologists when you claim (albeit falsely) that 50% of them support you? Or look at Faldur's post #333 where grasping for any straw to stay afloat he links to an article which he thinks attributes general long term ocean rise to the effects of El Nino and El Nina whereas the article makes no such claim, but even shows the El Nino and El Nina oscillations superposed upon the general rise due to global warming (see my post #334). These sorts of attempts to misrepresent and distort (whether they be due to inexcusable ignorance or deliberate) are examples of what the denier is led to in order to remain a denier. They are also examples of denier propaganda.

2. There is no obvious solution. It is unfeasible to simply stop burning fossil fuels. China is building coal burning plants hand over fist. Its the cheapest way for them to produce energy. It is estimated that there are enough coal deposits left on Earth to last a millennium (perhaps we should conserve them for the next ice age...but we won't). I don't see any way short of a miracle that we won't burn through them. For one thing, our first world lifestyles are at stake. Anyone here want to give up their computer, connectivity, winter heat, summer air-conditioning, car etc. etc. to save our great grandchildren that grief? For another thing, there's too much money to be made providing that energy. The coal is just laying there. All you gotta do is dig it up, sell it and ship it. One might try to slow down consumption by various sorts of regulations or incentives. Originally Democrats pushed for regulations. Republicans insisted on cap and trade. Now Democrats are pushing cap and trade, and Republicans say the free market will handle it. But to be effective, any regulation or incentive has to be international, and I'm pessimistic that we'll ever have effective national or international control of our energy consumption. The deniers (who, generally, deep down know they're wrong) are all waiting on the next scientific miracle that will produce safe energy for free while at the same time they want to reduce the funding of scientific institutions and take anti-science potshots at biologists, paleontologists, geologists and climatologists.

Disclaimer: Nowhere in this post (or prior posts in this thread) do I support any political position. I merely present the hard science and speculate on what might be going on in the heads of deniers.

---

Nice post, Trish. I enjoy your writing, and the thought you put into it. Wish my reading list was as substantive as yours.

EDIT: Oh hell, I might as well address the topic with my own opinion. Mine is not all that different from Trish's above. When global warming science first started getting a widespread airing, I was very alarmed. I changed some things up at the time, including the way I live my life and my laid back ways with others. I was pretty laissez faire, but global warming sort of kicked me in the butt and pushed me to become a whole lot more politically active. Since then, I've gradually mellowed out. I think it was at the time of the busted Kyoto conference/talks that it dawned on me that significant preventative action was not going to happen. It was right about the same time, and thoroughly related, that I saw the US political system as irreversibly broken. Warming will continue and we will see incredible effects even over the next 50 years - and I won't live much beyond that. The irony is that science and engineering will likely save the world. Praying to Jesus, definitely won't. Once disastrous effects are happening everywhere, science will take a prescriptive approach to solving the problems. And 150 years from now people will wonder why a far less costly preventative approach couldn't have been developed and executed in the late 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odelay

Nice post, Trish. I enjoy your writing, and the thought you put into it. Wish my reading list was as substantive as yours.

EDIT: Oh hell, I might as well address the topic with my own opinion. Mine is not all that different from Trish's above. When global warming science first started getting a widespread airing, I was very alarmed. I changed some things up at the time, including the way I live my life and my laid back ways with others. I was pretty laissez faire, but global warming sort of kicked me in the butt and pushed me to become a whole lot more politically active. Since then, I've gradually mellowed out. I think it was at the time of the busted Kyoto conference/talks that it dawned on me that significant preventative action was not going to happen. It was right about the same time, and thoroughly related, that I saw the US political system as irreversibly broken. Warming will continue and we will see incredible effects even over the next 50 years - and I won't live much beyond that. The irony is that science and engineering will likely save the world. Praying to Jesus, definitely won't. Once disastrous effects are happening everywhere, science will take a prescriptive approach to solving the problems. And 150 years from now people will wonder why a far less costly preventative approach couldn't have been developed and executed in the late 20th century.

---

Derrick Jensen: Civilization and Enlightenment - YouTube

Derrick Jensen on Our Cultural Death Wish - YouTube

Thank you Odelay. We find ourselves pretty much aligned.

Hi Ben.
Derrick Jensen defines a city as a population large enough to require the importation of resources. That’s fine, but it does leave out a number populations that are regarded as cities. A typical farmer in ancient Athens actually lived in the polis of Athens itself. Athens, and most other Greek poleis of the time, was surrounded by lands that the citizens of Athens farmed or used to graze sheep and cattle. The farmers typically retired to their homes within the polis at day’s end. Was Athens self-sustaining? Probably so. Why the qualifier ‘probably?’ Well, Athens was outward oriented. It chose to open itself to the world, through trade and the exchange of ideas. There were considerably many imported goods and considerably many exported goods. All that trade makes it difficult to say whether Athen’s survival required the goods it imported. But that complex flux of trade also demonstrates the irrelevance of the question. The real question is: Was the entire trade network (to which Athens was only one member) self-sustaining? Athens can be called a civilization, but it was not Civilization. The Civilization to which the Greek world belonged was the network of cities and farms to which it was connected. Did the cities of the ancient world sustain each other? Did that network survive into modern times and evolve into a modern network built upon the old? Or did the old network collapse and die?

There is a parallel with modern cities. Is Chicago, for example, self-sustaining? Well Chicago imports and exports all sorts of goods. Does the survival of Chicago depend on the imports? Probably so, if you consider milk brought to the city from fify miles downstate an import. If you don’t, then just making sense of the question is problematic. But the survival or collapse of Chicago is not the rise and fall of Civilization. The real question is: Is the network to which Chicago is connected self-sustaining? These days, that network is pretty much the world. Are we in the world succeeding at the task of sustaining each other and if so will we continue to succeed or will the whole thing soon collapse?

It is clear that in a finite world, growth cannot be the single strategy for solving economic problems. But it is also clear that growth often works when the population hasn’t yet come near carrying capacity. Perhaps the biggest difference between Greens and non-Greens is how the two groups esitimate our proximity to that capacity. The other difference might be measured by how optimistic one is about the possibility of political solutions to problems of sustainability. By that measure I am not a Green.

I'm not buying those definitions at all. Derrick Jensen's full of shit, just like so many others who need to revise the language to make their earlier ideas seem not so totally lame. Civilization is when you become unsustainable? C'mon... What're we supposed to do? Kill ourselves off by the billions so we can revert back to our glory days as savages? Then what? Who does this clown think started building cities?

I haven't read his books, & now I won't. I regret wasting the time to listen to the posted videos.

Don't have quite the visceral reaction of hippi, but I don't really buy his definitions either. I understand the need to make certain definitions or assumptions when writing material like this, but great care needs to be taken that exceptions aren't screaming out as soon as you lay a stake in the ground. It can also be argued that life in the country isn't sustainable either. Without the wealth that cities create to pay for armies, police, justice systems, etc., farms would be and are overrun. Wealthy farmers only exist where chaos is held at bay. There's a symbiotic nature between a farming region and cities, that combine to make civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Thank you Odelay. We find ourselves pretty much aligned.

Hi Ben.
Derrick Jensen defines a city as a population large enough to require the importation of resources. That’s fine, but it does leave out a number populations that are regarded as cities. A typical farmer in ancient Athens actually lived in the polis of Athens itself. Athens, and most other Greek poleis of the time, was surrounded by lands that the citizens of Athens farmed or used to graze sheep and cattle. The farmers typically retired to their homes within the polis at day’s end. Was Athens self-sustaining? Probably so. Why the qualifier ‘probably?’ Well, Athens was outward oriented. It chose to open itself to the world, through trade and the exchange of ideas. There were considerably many imported goods and considerably many exported goods. All that trade makes it difficult to say whether Athen’s survival required the goods it imported. But that complex flux of trade also demonstrates the irrelevance of the question. The real question is: Was the entire trade network (to which Athens was only one member) self-sustaining? Athens can be called a civilization, but it was not Civilization. The Civilization to which the Greek world belonged was the network of cities and farms to which it was connected. Did the cities of the ancient world sustain each other? Did that network survive into modern times and evolve into a modern network built upon the old? Or did the old network collapse and die?

There is a parallel with modern cities. Is Chicago, for example, self-sustaining? Well Chicago imports and exports all sorts of goods. Does the survival of Chicago depend on the imports? Probably so, if you consider milk brought to the city from fify miles downstate an import. If you don’t, then just making sense of the question is problematic. But the survival or collapse of Chicago is not the rise and fall of Civilization. The real question is: Is the network to which Chicago is connected self-sustaining? These days, that network is pretty much the world. Are we in the world succeeding at the task of sustaining each other and if so will we continue to succeed or will the whole thing soon collapse?

It is clear that in a finite world, growth cannot be the single strategy for solving economic problems. But it is also clear that growth often works when the population hasn’t yet come near carrying capacity. Perhaps the biggest difference between Greens and non-Greens is how the two groups esitimate our proximity to that capacity. The other difference might be measured by how optimistic one is about the possibility of political solutions to problems of sustainability. By that measure I am not a Green.

---

Hey Trish,
The likes of Derrick Jensen say we're killing the planet. 200 species a day are being wiped out. I mean, what happens, according to Jensen, if we keep going as is? What will the planet look like in 100 years or 200 years or 500?
But he thinks we have to end industrial civilization. (First off, most people, would and do strongly disagree.) He believes electricity isn't sustainable. (Derrick Jensen is of the left left left -- ha ha! I mean, there's left-liberal and left. But Derrick Jensen is left left left.) He also believes we can't and shouldn't have bicycles. What?!?!?!?!?!
But he does make a point that we managed fine without electricity prior to circa 1880. Of course, well, it'd be a radical step for humanity. And most people wouldn't go along with it. Well, I wouldn't.
But he makes some interesting points. Well, we know that cancer is a byproduct or consequence of civilization.
Ya know, if we go back, say, 15,000 years ago cancer didn't exist. It's a consequence of civilization.
And, say, 20,000 years ago human beings were taller, their bones were denser and we lived longer.
Why do we assume agriculture, technology and all this stuff is a sign of progress? Close to 8 million people die every year from cancer. Again, a consequence of our despoliation of the planet.
I might add: what's the endgame of industrial civilization?
I don't agree with Derrick Jensen. But he does raise some serious questions about industrial civilization.
Spencer Wells, too, talks about the destructiveness of civilization in his book: Pandora's Seed.

I'm not buying that cancer is a byproduct of civilization. You really think Cro-Magnon didn't get melanomas? Certain gene combinations are known to predispose women to breast cancers which may develop spontaneously or develop with exposure to carcinogens (which can be found in nature as well as in the products of the industrial world). Do we have any reason to think those genetic combinations are the result of civilization and weren't in the population say 30,000 years ago? Without the benefit of the scientific method, Cro-Magnon never knew about vitamins. He died of rickets and scurvy. Nor did they have knowledge of pathogens and contagion. Consequently their children died of childhood diseases and whole tribes were wiped out by plagues. I don't believe the average life expectancy 20 000 years ago was longer than it is today. Childhood mortality is enough to skew it our favor. Modern geriatrics skews it even more in our favor.

It's true that Homo sapiens have lived on the planet for a couple hundred thousand years. Were our ancestors self-sustaining, or were they living subsistence life-styles?

Here's an interesting multiple choice question.

When was the imminent extinction of Homo sapiens more probable?
a) 125 000 years ago.
b) Right now.

I'm going with answer (a).

For my money Jared Diamond has a more reasoned and sane handle on the factors that allow civilizations to survive, flourish or collapse (Guns, Germs and Steel and also Collapse are two of his books on the subject).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

But he makes some interesting points. Well, we know that cancer is a byproduct or consequence of civilization.
Ya know, if we go back, say, 15,000 years ago cancer didn't exist. It's a consequence of civilization.

---

that is such an unbelieveable bunch of bullshit
first of all animals get cancer too secondly how the hell do you know cancer didnt exist back then?
lastly in the majority of the cases cancer is a condition that appears late in life which obviously means that 15k years ago where the life expectancy was several decades shorter than today cancer would naturally have been a lot less prevalent